Type 4 battling infinites

[Pern]

One of the base rules of Type 4 is that when two X effects compete,
the defensive one wins.
Combat Medic's prevention ability beats Masticore's damage ability.

What happens when the roles are less clear?

Nezumi Graverobber flipped into Nighteyes on the table,
Withered Wretch across the table.
Siege-Gang Commander hits the graveyard.
Which ability wins?

[Toad]

This is definitly *not* a rules question. This thread will probably have more success in the Casual forum.

[VGB]

I'd say in that case the Active Player wins.  If neither is active, then use whoever is first in order of play.

And yes, it is most definitely a rules question, if a fringe one.

[ShoryuuReppaX]

My T4 playgroup handles infinite activations differently.

First of all, my group is full of math, science and engineering nerds.

We basically use L' Hopital's rule, and take in account of the order in which the abilities are activated.

For example, Masticore vs a 2/2 generic regenerator.
For every 2 activations of Masticore the regenerator only has to activate once; therefore, the regenerator always wins.

In the case of a 1/1 regenerator vs a Masticore, it gets trickier. Basically, whoever activates first loses.

In the case of 2 Masticores vs a 2/2 regenerator, it gets simplified down to the previous example with the 1/1 regenerator, because we group infinite activations by player, not by individual cards.

My T4 group decided this method makes the most sense, and for every case there will be a distinct answer.

[Nefarias]

Well, we don't play with Seige-Gang, but if we did, I can guess how we would resolve it. We would figure that since the Wretch is trying to purge the Commander from existance, whereas the Graverobber is trying to revive it from the dead, that the Graverobber is flavorfully the more defensive ability. The fact that everyone dies from this is a side effect.

I can think of two others that we have a problem with. We have come up with house solutions, but if anyone has suggestion, do tell, as they are pretty arbitrary.

1) I have Darkling Stalker. You have Smokespew Invoker. I know you can't kill my dude, but can I swing in for the kill? We have resolved that in that situation, the base P/T remains (unless the creature is in mortal danger).

2) I have Quicksilver Elemental. You play Memnarch. Who gets what? We have decided that the guy with Quicksilver gets to keep his stuff, and Memnarch guy gets everything else.

I'm sure there're plenty more, but that's just what I could think of off the top of my head.

[Sanity_XIV]

Generally my friends and I tend to use APNAP: Active Player - Not Active Player. As in the ability of the less active player always wins out.

Example: I have an Armored Guardian in play, and my opponent has a smokespew invoker. If I am the active player, then he will be able to kill my stuff. Otherwise, it goes by whoever is in order to become the most active player.

[VGB]

From the rulings summaries:

421 - Handling "Infinite" loops

421.3 - If the loop contains at least one optional action controlled by each player and actions by both players are required to continue the loop, the active player chooses a number. The nonactive player then has two choices. He or she can choose a lower number, in which case the loop continues that number of times plus whatever fraction is necessary for the active player to "have the last word." Or he or she can agree to the number the active player chose, in which case the loop continues that number of times plus whatever fraction is necessary for the nonactive player to "have the last word." (Note that either fraction may be zero.)
Example: One player controls a creature with the ability ": [This creature] gains flying." Another player controls a permanent with the ability ": Target creature loses flying." The "infinity rule" ensures that regardless of which player initiated the gain/lose flying ability, the nonactive player will always have the final choice and therefore be able to determine whether the creature has flying. (Note that this assumes that the first player attempted to give the creature flying at least once.) [CompRules 2003/07/01]

[Jacob Orlove]

Using the APNAP rules for T4 leads to really dumb things happening on a regular basis.

My advice is: when there's a clear defensive ability, it wins. Otherwise, whoever tries to do something first, loses. That makes removal spells actually relevant to the face-off, which is cool.

[Sanity_XIV]

Using the APNAP rules for T4 leads to really dumb things happening on a regular basis. .

If you don't mind my asking, what are some examples? APNAP seems to work for my group.

[Jacob Orlove]

It just means that you get a different result for the same situation depending on whose turn it is--which is especially bad when neither player is the active player. While that makes complete sense for two-player magic, having one player's abilities "win" just because he's sitting to the right of the other guy isn't really fair. Where you sit relative to everyone else shouldn't determine anything more than the turn order, or else you'll start having arguments about who has to sit where.

It's just a lot more fun when you use the defensive ability rule.

[VGB]

I wasn't trying to invalidate the "defensive ability" unoffical T4 rule, but rather clarify the case where you have battling abilities where there is no clear indicator of which ability is offensive/defensive.

[Limbo]

I would say that the nezumi ability is the offensive ability, since it tries to put a creature into play, effectively putting a couple seal of fires into play. The wretch defends against that, so it is the defending ability.

[VGB]

I would say that the nezumi ability is the offensive ability, since it tries to put a creature into play, effectively putting a couple seal of fires into play. The wretch defends against that, so it is the defending ability.

Both abilities can be construed as equally offensive, as both the Nezumi and Wretch change the zones cards reside in.  Just because one puts the cards in play versus RFG is inconsequential.

[Limbo]

I would say that the nezumi ability is the offensive ability, since it tries to put a creature into play, effectively putting a couple seal of fires into play. The wretch defends against that, so it is the defending ability.

Both abilities can be construed as equally offensive, as both the Nezumi and Wretch change the zones cards reside in.  Just because one puts the cards in play versus RFG is inconsequential.

If you use that as logic, then masticore can be considered to have a  defensive ability, as it defends you against enemy attacks...

I just tried to find "logic" in a format that already has some warped rules. But I admit, it is kinda shaky to try on these abilities.

[VGB]

If you use that as logic, then masticore can be considered to have a  defensive ability, as it defends you against enemy attacks...

Huh?  If Masty tries to nuke a regenerator, the regeneration ability keeps the creature in play, whereas Masty would destroy the creature and put it in the graveyard, changing the card's resident zone.

If you try to make an example using my logic, at least use my logic correctly.  I don't know where you got the idea that combat is an offensive ability from my example.